Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 356 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 376NOMINAL INDEXA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH GNCTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 356Mohammed Akmam Uddin Ahmed & Ors. Versus Commissioner Appeals Customs And Central Excise 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 357BPI Sports LLC v. Saurabh Gulati & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 358SMITA MAAN AND ANR. v. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 359KANKIPATI...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 356 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 376
NOMINAL INDEX
A v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH GNCTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 356
Mohammed Akmam Uddin Ahmed & Ors. Versus Commissioner Appeals Customs And Central Excise 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 357
BPI Sports LLC v. Saurabh Gulati & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 358
SMITA MAAN AND ANR. v. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 359
KANKIPATI RAJESH v. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 360
Chandini through her natural guardian v. BFI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 361
Delhi Waqf Board v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 362
ALEMLA JAMIR v. NIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 363
PONDICHERRY BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 364
ASHISH MITTAL v. SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 365
BUDDHABHUSHAN ANAND LONDHE & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 366
SJ v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 367
Sushma Prasad v. GNCTD & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 368
Fedders Electric & Engineering v. Srishthi Constructions 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 369
NINA LATH GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 370
NISHA PRIYA BHATIA v. CPIO, DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 371
NAVEEN KUMAR DALAL v. NEELAM KADYAN 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 372
NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 373
Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 374
PREETENDRA SINGH AULAKH v. GREEN LIGHT FOODS PVT. LTD. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 375
SMT. ASHA GUPTA v. SHRI SANDEEP GUPTA AND OTHERS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 376
Title: A v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH GNCTD
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 356
The Delhi High Court directed the Medical Superintendent of LNJP Hospital to not disclose identity details of a 14-year-old, who is seeking termination of her 11-week pregnancy.
Justice Prathiba M Singh also directed the concerned SHO of Delhi Police to ensure that the identity of the minor or her family is not disclosed during the process of investigation.
Section 19(1) of POCSO Act provides mandatory reporting of child sexual offences to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police.
Case Title: Mohammed Akmam Uddin Ahmed & Ors. Versus Commissioner Appeals Customs And Central Excise
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 357
The Delhi High Court has allowed the appeals of poor daily wage earners against the seizure of goods without insisting on the requirement of pre-deposit.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the statute may, at times, impose conditions as a requirement of filing an appeal. However, a condition that is unduly onerous will render the right to appeal null and void.
Case Title: BPI Sports LLC v. Saurabh Gulati & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 358
The Delhi High Court, while directing removal of a word mark from the register of trade marks, has observed that 'trade mark squatting', which is an internationally known intellectual property misdemeanour, would certainly amount to “bad faith” within the meaning of Section 11(10)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act even if the term does not find a special mention in the law.
The court held that the real intent and purpose of Section 11(10)(ii) is to disentitle registration of a mark, the request for registration of which is tainted by bad faith.
Minor’s Passport Can Be Issued Without Father’s Name, Depending Upon Circumstances: Delhi High Court
Title: SMITA MAAN AND ANR. v. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 359
The Delhi High Court has observed that the passport of a minor child can be issued without the biological father’s name under “varying circumstances” and that such a relief depends upon the “facts of each case.”
Emphasising that no hard and fast rule can be applied in such cases, Justice Prathiba M Singh said that the Passport Manual of 2020 and the official memorandum issued by Union Ministry of External Affairs on February 28 last year recognise that passports can be issued under different circumstances without father’s name.
Title: KANKIPATI RAJESH v. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 360
The Delhi High Court had warned the Adjudicating Authority under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) to not use “disconcerting language” in its orders and said that repeated use of “template paragraphs” is not permissible.
Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the Appellate Tribunal under PMLA to ensure that the Adjudicating Authority abides by the principles of natural justice and the court’s observations in Dr. U.S. Awasthi v. Adjudicating Authority PMLA & Anr.
“The Appellate Tribunal, PMLA would take the above observations into consideration and pass appropriate directions,” the court said.
Case Title: Chandini through her natural guardian v. BFI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 361
The Delhi High Court has directed the Basketball Federation of India to hold a meeting with the Sports Authority of India and Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to find a solution for players who are disqualified for not having a birth certificate obtained in the year of birth or within two years of birth, as per the BFI rule.
“It is possible that a large number of players would not have got issued certificates immediately upon their birth or within two years thereafter. Such a stipulation could exclude a large number of talented players from participation in trials. This ought not to be the intention of the Rule,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said.
Title: Delhi Waqf Board v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 362
The Delhi High Court has said that the Union Government may carry out physical inspection of 123 properties, possession of which is being claimed by the Delhi Waqf Board, while ensuring minimal disruption in the day-to-day administration of the properties.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri passed the order on April 26 in the petition moved by Delhi Waqf Board challenging the government’s decision to “absolve” the board from all matters pertaining to 123 properties.
Terror Funding Case: Delhi High Court Denies Default Bail To NSCN(IM) Leader Alemla Jamir
Title: ALEMLA JAMIR v. NIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 363
The Delhi High Court has denied default bail to Naga insurgent group National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak Muivah (NSCN (IM)) leader Alemla Jamir, arrested in a terror funding case probed by National Investigation Agency.
A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Talwant Singh dismissed Jamir’s appeal challenging an order passed by Special NIA court on July 03, 2020, dismissing her application, seeking release on statutory bail, on the ground that the chargesheet was filed within the limitation period.
Title: PONDICHERRY BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 364
The Delhi High Court has appointed Justice P. Krishna Bhat, former judge of Karnataka High Court, as the Administrator to conduct the elections of Basketball Federation of India in accordance with National Sports Code and Model Election Guidelines.
Noting that the term of the office bearers of the federation stood expired on February 18, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that the Administrator shall function till the newly elected body takes over the charge of BFI.
Title: ASHISH MITTAL v. SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 365
The Delhi High Court has observed that the prosecution cannot only recite from a complaint or simply say that it has material against an accused in respect of those offences for which twin conditions are stipulated in a statute for grant of bail.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that the prosecution must show how the material collected during investigation supports allegations in the complaint and how they apply against the accused.
Title: BUDDHABHUSHAN ANAND LONDHE & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 366
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking relaxation for the students appearing in JEE Advanced 2023 examination.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav rejected the plea moved by 67 students who are Class XII pass-outs of 2021 and could not use appear in the JEE (Advanced) Examination purportedly because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The plea sought relaxation of the “two attempts in two consecutive years" criteria so that students who could not appear twice or even once in the years 2021 and 2022 be allowed to appear this year as a “special provision.”
Title: SJ v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 367
The Delhi High Court has ordered removal of online articles and publications in relation to a man against whom an FIR was lodged in 2021 for the offence of extortion by a friend due to his “immature prank” which was later settled and quashed in June last year.
Justice Prathiba M Singh granted relief to the 33-year-old, who was suspended by his employer until removal of the articles.
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Stay To Scrapping Of A Family Heritage Car
Case Title: Sushma Prasad v. GNCTD & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 368
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim stay on the scrapping of a 15-year-old Daewoo Matiz, which the petitioner claims is a 'family heritage car.' The court has also issued a notice to the transport department and its authorized vehicle scrapping agency, M/s Go Green ELV Handlers.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri said that, “Till the next date of hearing, respondent No.3(scrapping agency)shall ensure that the subject vehicle is not dismantled or scrapped.”
Case Title: Fedders Electric & Engineering v. Srishthi Constructions
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 369
The Delhi High Court has held that the Court while exercising powers under Section 9(3) of the A&C Act cannot examine the allegations of fraud or forgery when the arbitral tribunal is already in place and seized of the matter.
The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that once the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, the Court shall not entertain any application under Section 9 except in cases of exceptional circumstances in which the remedy before the tribunal would not be efficacious.
Title: NINA LATH GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 370
The Delhi High Court has observed that a termination order of an employee in a tenure employment is untenable in law if it is issued without giving an opportunity to the employee to defend against the accusations.
Referring to various judgments on the subject, Justice Jyoti Singh said:
“…if an order is founded on allegations, the order is stigmatic and punitive and services of an employee cannot be dispensed with without affording him an opportunity of defending the accusations/allegations made against him in a full-fledged inquiry.”
Title: NISHA PRIYA BHATIA v. CPIO, DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES, MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 371
The Delhi High Court has observed that Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) is an exempted organisation under the Right to Information Act, 2005, unless the information sought relates to human rights or corruption related issues.
“RAW is an organisation which is specifically mentioned in the Section Schedule to the RTI Act. It is an exempt organisation. Unless the nature of information sought relates to human rights or corruption related issues, information is not liable to be disclosed,” Justice Prathiba M Singh observed.
Title: NAVEEN KUMAR DALAL v. NEELAM KADYAN
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 372
The Delhi High Court has observed that the cross-examination of a witness has to be concluded within a reasonable time limit and that it cannot continue “ad nauseam” in a never ending manner.
Observing that cross-examination of a witness is an opportunity to the party to rebut the evidence given by such witness, Justice Prathiba M Singh took strong note of a matrimonial case where cross examination of wife by the husband continued before the Family Court “on dates after dates.”
“Such cross-examination in matrimonial matters would be nothing more than sheer harassment,” the court said.
Case Title: NEETA BHARDWAJ & ORS. v. KAMLESH SHARMA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 373
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Development Authority to cease construction on a land adjoining the Lotus Temple and Kalkaji Mandir, observing that it is likely to affect skyline in the area.
Dealing with a bunch of pleas concerning redevelopment of Kalkaji temple, Justice Prathiba M Singh perused various photographs and said that large scale construction is being carried out on the land.
Although the DDA claimed that the construction is temporary in nature, the court said that any construction of the nature being undertaken would affect the view of the Lotus Temple.
Case Title: Master Arnesh Shaw v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 374
The Delhi High Court has summoned the Secretary of Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in a bunch of pleas concerning the treatment of children suffering from rare diseases like Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and Hunter's syndrome.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that repeated orders of the court for release of further amounts for treatment have not been acceded to by Union Ministry.
Case Title: PREETENDRA SINGH AULAKH v. GREEN LIGHT FOODS PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 375
The Delhi High Court has restrained a Tamil Nadu based manufacturer from using “Monsoon Harvest” mark till the pendency of a trademark infringement suit filed by owner of “Monsoon Harvest Farms”.
Justice Navin Chawla observed that the plaintiff, Preetendra Singh Aulakh, is the registered proprietor of the mark “Monsoon Harvest Farms” and also its prior user, and that the defendant's product is deceptively and confusingly similar.
Title: SMT. ASHA GUPTA v. SHRI SANDEEP GUPTA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 376
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere averment or a bald allegation is not sufficient to initiate contempt proceedings or issuance of show cause notice against a person.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that the disobedience must be “wilful and beyond a casual or accidental genuine inability” to comply with the terms of the judicial order.
“ Moreover, mere unintentional disobedience is not enough, an absence of wilful disobedience on the part of the contemnor, will not hold him guilty unless the contempt involves a degree of fault or misconduct,” the court said.